How Can the Word “Cow” Exclude Non-cows? Description of Meaning in Dignāga’s Theory of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Apoha</Emphasis>

Dignāga’s theory of semantics called the “theory of apoha (exclusion)” has been criticized by those who state that it may lead to a circular argument wherein “exclusion of others” (anyāpoha) is understood as mere double negation. Dignāga, however, does not intend mere double negation by anyāpoha. In his view, the word “cow” for instance, excludes those that do not have the set of features such as a dewlap, horns, and so on, by applying the semantic method called componential analysis. The present paper aims to prove this by referring to the fragments quoted by Jinendrabuddhi and Siddhasenaga?i. Dignāga logically proves that the denotation of the referent Q by the word “P” cannot be derived from the joint presence (anvaya) of “P” with Q. Instead, he derives it from the joint absence (vyatireka) of “P” with the nonexistence of Q. Anyāpoha is nothing but verbal vyatireka. Componential analysis is used for describing what is to be excluded. Dignāga draws taxonomic hierarchies of words based on their customary use, and assumes componential analysis to operate in the background of the hierarchies formed in semantic fields, stating that a general term is restricted to having the same reference with one of its specific terms insofar as the former is connected (yukta) with the characteristics of the latter’s referent. Moreover, he states that a proper name also denotes its referent by excluding those that do not have the cluster of a certain number of qualities.     

A case of death after ingestion of an agrochemical spreading agent

An agrochemical spreading agent was found near the slightly decomposed corpse of a deceased female. The appearance of the stomach contents suggested that ingestion of a surfactant had occurred before death. The spreading agent was found to contain nonionic nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEO(n)) and anionic sulfonated naphthalene-formaldehyde condensates (SNFC(n)). A solid phase extraction cartridge containing a mixed reversed phase-weak anion exchange sorbent (Oasis WAX, Waters) was used to successfully extract both NPEO(n) and SNFC(n) from the blood. The cartridge was preconditioned with methanol and acetic acid (AcOH). After the dilute blood sample was applied to the cartridge, it was washed with AcOH, and then NPEO(n) and SNFC(n) were eluted with methanol/dichloromethane (7:3, v/v) and 5% NH(3)/80% methanol, respectively. The concentrations of NPEO(n=2-9) and SNFC(n=0) in the blood sample were 7.7μg/mL and 1.8mg/mL, respectively. It is possible that postmortem changes increased the concentration of SNFC(n=0) monomer by breaking down the polymer. However, the behavior of these compounds in the human body is unclear and further case studies are needed to investigate this result.     

How to Refer to a Thing by a Word: Another Difference Between Dign��ga��s and Kum��rila��s Theories of Denotation

In studies of Indian theories of meaning it has been standard procedure to examine their relevance to the ontological issues between Brahmin realism about universals and Buddhist nominalism (or conceptualism). It is true that Kum??rila makes efforts to secure the real existence of a generic property (j??ti) denoted by a word by criticizing Dign??ga, who declares that the real world consists of absolutely unique individuals (svalak?a?a). The present paper, however, concentrates on the linguistic approaches Dign??ga and Kum??rila adopt to deny or to prove the existence of universals. It turns out that in spite of adopting contrasting approaches they equally distinguish between the semantic denotation of a word and its pragmatic reference to a thing in the physical world. From a purely semantic viewpoint, Dign??ga considers the exclusion (apoha) of others by a word as the result of a conceptual accumulation of the sense-components accepted in the totality of worldly discourse. Among the three characteristics Dign??ga held must be met by universals, Kum??rila attaches special importance to their entire inherence in each individual (pratyekaparisam??pti / pratyekasamav??ya). This is because he pragmatically pays attention to the use of a word in the discourse given in a particular context (prakara?a) by analyzing a sentence into a topic and a comment.